Friam

Few of you ...

Classic

List

Threaded

75 messages Options

1234

Nick Thompson

Few of you ...

, I imagine, are old enough to remember this:

“The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots. If you are not an idiot, but find yourself in the Navy, you can only operate well by pretending to be one. All the shortcuts and economies and common-sense changes that your native intelligence suggests to you are mistakes. Learn to quash them. Constantly ask yourself, "How would I do this if I were a fool?" Throttle down your mind to a crawl. Then you will never go wrong.”
― Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny

It seems right that the computer was invented by a democratic society after the largest successful naval campaign in the history of the universe. The navy was a giant algorithm. Computers are the conscripted sailors of our generation.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Few of you ...

I read the book but I don't remember that paragraph. As you know, dad was a Naval Officer who achieved respectable rank. I was fascinated by it but he felt that all the pomp and ceremony was BS. If computers are today's sailors, something is lost and something gained.

Frank

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 9:53 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email] wrote:

, I imagine, are old enough to remember this:

“The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots. If you are not an idiot, but find yourself in the Navy, you can only operate well by pretending to be one. All the shortcuts and economies and common-sense changes that your native intelligence suggests to you are mistakes. Learn to quash them. Constantly ask yourself, "How would I do this if I were a fool?" Throttle down your mind to a crawl. Then you will never go wrong.”
― Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny
It seems right that the computer was invented by a democratic society after the largest successful naval campaign in the history of the universe. The navy was a giant algorithm. Computers are the conscripted sailors of our generation.

Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: Few of you ...

Thanks for answering, Frank.

As the old song goes, “Then you’re much older than I-yai!”

Do you also remember when “They waltzed to a Souza Band”

My wasn’t that music grand!

Oh, it was more than the pomp Wouk bristled at. It was the removal of discretion, as well. The American military is perhaps better than most in that regard, but any military has to operate on algorithms, and nobody likes to be a node in an algorithm. So, I guess my thesis was that in the second world war we got a double and conflicting lesson: how effective an algorithmic system can be AND how demeaning it can be to be part of one. Two solutions present themselves: 1. Hire mercenaries and 2. Automate. Of course we have done both.

An officer of your dad’s rank, of course, was an exception and even within that giant system he made big decisions daily, decisions that affected the lives of thousands of people. There is a scene in that same book where an officer is required to make one of those decisions between surely killing 50 strangers or threatening the life of 150 you know that utilitarians are fond of posing. It’s a harrowing scene.

I wonder what the relation is between a distaste for government and service as an enlisted soldier. That’s not a rhetorical question. I do wonder. I am thinking there is a high correlation between states with high military participation and states with anti-government politics. When a conservative thinks of “government” is he more likely to think of the military?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 10:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Few of you ...

Frank

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 9:53 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email] wrote:

, I imagine, are old enough to remember this:

“The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots. If you are not an idiot, but find yourself in the Navy, you can only operate well by pretending to be one. All the shortcuts and economies and common-sense changes that your native intelligence suggests to you are mistakes. Learn to quash them. Constantly ask yourself, "How would I do this if I were a fool?" Throttle down your mind to a crawl. Then you will never go wrong.”
― Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny
It seems right that the computer was invented by a democratic society after the largest successful naval campaign in the history of the universe. The navy was a giant algorithm. Computers are the conscripted sailors of our generation.

Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Edward Angel

Re: Few of you ...

Herman Wouk’s brother Victor is credited with being the inventor of the hybrid car. He interviewed me for Caltech when I was a senior in high school.

____________

Ed Angel

Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab)
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico

1017 Sierra Pinon

Santa Fe, NM 87501
505-984-0136 (home) [hidden email]

505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel

On Jan 15, 2019, at 12:18 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks for answering, Frank.

As the old song goes, “Then you’re much older than I-yai!”

Do you also remember when “They waltzed to a Souza Band”

My wasn’t that music grand!

Oh, it was more than the pomp Wouk bristled at. It was the removal of discretion, as well. The American military is perhaps better than most in that regard, but any military has to operate on algorithms, and nobody likes to be a node in an algorithm. So, I guess my thesis was that in the second world war we got a double and conflicting lesson: how effective an algorithmic system can be AND how demeaning it can be to be part of one. Two solutions present themselves: 1. Hire mercenaries and 2. Automate. Of course we have done both.

An officer of your dad’s rank, of course, was an exception and even within that giant system he made big decisions daily, decisions that affected the lives of thousands of people. There is a scene in that same book where an officer is required to make one of those decisions between surely killing 50 strangers or threatening the life of 150 you know that utilitarians are fond of posing. It’s a harrowing scene.

I wonder what the relation is between a distaste for government and service as an enlisted soldier. That’s not a rhetorical question. I do wonder. I am thinking there is a high correlation between states with high military participation and states with anti-government politics. When a conservative thinks of “government” is he more likely to think of the military?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 10:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Few of you ...

I read the book but I don't remember that paragraph. As you know, dad was a Naval Officer who achieved respectable rank. I was fascinated by it but he felt that all the pomp and ceremony was BS. If computers are today's sailors, something is lost and something gained.

Frank
-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 9:53 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email] wrote:
, I imagine, are old enough to remember this:

“The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots. If you are not an idiot, but find yourself in the Navy, you can only operate well by pretending to be one. All the shortcuts and economies and common-sense changes that your native intelligence suggests to you are mistakes. Learn to quash them. Constantly ask yourself, "How would I do this if I were a fool?" Throttle down your mind to a crawl. Then you will never go wrong.”
― Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny
It seems right that the computer was invented by a democratic society after the largest successful naval campaign in the history of the universe. The navy was a giant algorithm.   Computers are the conscripted sailors of our generation.

Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

I don't know, man. I'm an antisocial person. But I seem to meet a lot of people who truly *enjoy* being in and playing on teams. Teams are, by definition, algorithmic, some more, some less. The same could be said about going to arena sized concerts, or chanting silly things at protests or rallies: Lock Him Up! Lock Him Up! 8^)

These people don't *seem* like they feel demeaned. They seem energized by their mob behavior. Teams are energized when they play "in the zone". Etc. Even in the case of the high rank *nodes*. Their decisions are more algorithmic than those of the low rank nodes. The difference is they have to be *rational* ... they have to encapsulate much more of the algorithm inside their heads, whereas the low rank nodes have more of the algorithm in the machinery and processes around them ... the "extended mind" as it were.

The people who "hate the government" are *big* team players. That's the problem. They're upset because they don't feel like they're part of the team. They've been left out (mostly because they can't catch or hit the damned ball!).

On 1/14/19 10:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Oh, it was more than the pomp Wouk bristled at. It was the removal of discretion, as well. The American military is perhaps better than most in that regard, but any military has to operate on algorithms, and nobody likes to be a node in an algorithm. So, I guess my thesis was that in the second world war we got a double and conflicting lesson: how effective an algorithmic system can be AND how demeaning it can be to be part of one. Two solutions present themselves: 1. Hire mercenaries and 2. Automate. Of course we have done both.
>
>
>
> An officer of your dad’s rank, of course, was an exception and even within that giant system he made big decisions daily, decisions that affected the lives of thousands of people. There is a scene in that same book where an officer is required to make one of those decisions between surely killing 50 strangers or threatening the life of 150 you know that utilitarians are fond of posing. It’s a harrowing scene.
>
>
>
> I wonder what the relation is between a distaste for government and service as an enlisted soldier. That’s not a rhetorical question. I do wonder. I am thinking there is a high correlation between states with high military participation and states with anti-government politics. When a conservative thinks of “government” is he more likely to think of the military?

--
∄ uǝʃƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Few of you ...

Glen writes:

"But I seem to meet a lot of people who truly *enjoy* being in and playing on teams."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/people-adopt-made-up-social-rules-to-be-part-of-a-group/

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Prof David West

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick wrote:

"Computers are the conscripted sailors of our generation."

I would say that "computer users are the conscripted sailors.

Computers, computing, software: all are algorithmic, creating an "algorithmic context" (Navy) within which human users (Sailors) are constrained to act.

Like human sailors in the Navy, human users acting in this algorithmic context can only go wrong if they attempt to utilize their "native intelligence."

Moreover, this state of affairs is pretty much intentional (albeit sometimes below the threshold of awareness). In the algorithmic world, humans are nothing except sources of error. Even those developing the software are assumed to be (the vast majority anyway) incompetent and must be constrained by rigid and detailed methodology.

SkyNet has won and we are but its minions.

davew

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, at 9:53 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

, I imagine, are old enough to remember this:

“The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots. If you are not an idiot, but find yourself in the Navy, you can only operate well by pretending to be one. All the shortcuts and economies and common-sense changes that your native intelligence suggests to you are mistakes. Learn to quash them. Constantly ask yourself, "How would I do this if I were a fool?" Throttle down your mind to a crawl. Then you will never go wrong.”
― Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny
It seems right that the computer was invented by a democratic society after the largest successful naval campaign in the history of the universe. The navy was a giant algorithm. Computers are the conscripted sailors of our generation.

Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Marcus,

Interesting article. Referenced within it is a long Wikipedia article on self-categorization theory, which is, by the way, just a stunning example of abduction.

Eric take note.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:40 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Few of you ...

Glen writes:

"But I seem to meet a lot of people who truly *enjoy* being in and playing on teams."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/people-adopt-made-up-social-rules-to-be-part-of-a-group/

Marcus

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Heh, all of this begs for a definition of "algorithmic". I sincerely doubt Nick was using it in the sense of a fully definite process that is guaranteed to halt. So, there's something else, there, something significantly *softer* ... more vague ... ill-defined. It's almost as if Nick (or Wouk via Nick) thinks rigorous social rules violate the soul or denigrate the individual mind in favor of the biofilm (that we actually are).

It brings Taoism to my ignorant mind. It seems the fully enlightened individual is perfectly free if and only if they fully engage in their algorithmic behavior.

On 1/15/19 9:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:

> Computers, computing, software: all are algorithmic, creating an
> "algorithmic context" (Navy) within which human users (Sailors) are
> constrained to act.
> Like human sailors in the Navy, human users acting in this algorithmic
> context can only go wrong if they attempt to utilize their "native
> intelligence."
> Moreover, this state of affairs is pretty much intentional (albeit
> sometimes below the threshold of awareness). In the algorithmic world,
> humans are nothing except sources of error. Even those developing the
> software are assumed to be (the vast majority anyway) incompetent and
> must be constrained by rigid and detailed methodology.
> SkyNet has won and we are but its minions.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Steve Smith

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen claims "antisocial" and I think Dave has mentioned his own "tendency to withdraw from society" (my paraphrase, I welcome correction or elaboration. I hypothosize that *many* who are significantly engaged in online discussion/community may well fit one of the myriad positions on (and near?) the anti-social spectrum?

I personally prefer to consider myself to have "asocial tendencies". I'm not entirely uncomfortable in social groups, but I know I tend to prefer smaller groups or sub-groups within a larger group, to the extreme of engaging mostly in serial one-on-one conversations at dinner parties. I tend to reserve the term "anti-social" for something a bit more active in the sense of not only avoiding engaging in social groups/activities, but being hostile (openly or not) toward such groups. I can admit to being somewhat judgemental about large-group activities (attending pop culture events en-masse, including political rallies and street protests), but more in the sense of "I wouldn't be caught dead doing that!" rather than "anyone who participates in such things are mindless idiots!" I even accept that under the right circumstances I have been known to participate. I do attend small gathering performances/readings/events and in most cases find their downside more about the tedium than the actual content/experience itself.

My father (1927-2014) was a bit of a paradox on this topic. He was born and raised amongst his hillbilly relatives. His father (my grandfather (1898-1975) and grandmother(1899-1950) were the first of their generation to get an advanced education (MS/BS degrees vs typically 8th grade) and escape the day to day circumstances of their otherwise humble origins. My grandmother, despite education and living in a small city through her adult life, never left her "mountain origins" while my grandfather fashioned himself much more of a "modern man". My own father spent his self aware life in one of three uniforms, two in the service of the US Government. The first was in the Boy Scouts of America for his teen years. The Second as a recruit in the US Navy at the very end of WWII, not leaving dock until after VJ day, spending his 3 years helping to clean up after the war in the Pacific. The third was as an employee of the US Forest Service. His roots and instincts were those of a very independent person who felt by some measure that every man was an island, yet his practice was to find his place as an island as a member of an Archipelago. Half the allure of the Boy Scouts and of the US Forest Service was his draw to spend time in the wilds... the other half seems to have been to *also* have the sanction of the authority of a uniform and a set of rules. His stint in the Navy may have been the same.

Many of his anecdotes about both the USN and USFS involved him recognizing/discovering/exercising the distinction between blind observance of rules and the recognition and pursuit of the spirit of the rules, and him having ultimately prevailed over strict interpretations with common sense actions in the spirit when not the letter of the regulations. His proudest moment may have been when his court martial was dismissed abruptly after being charged for deriliction/AWOL during the Port Chicago disaster in 1944 where 320 Navy men were killed and a similar number were injured. He was a medical aide/assistant on his ship which was docked near the disaster and when the injured personnel began arriving, he reported for duty without being called. After several shifts of non-stop desperate work to do triage and save the lives (and often limbs) of those harmed, he returned to his berth only to be arrested for having not been available when they came to collect him for duty in the emergency. They apparently ignored or didn't believe his "alibi" and he went through the whole formal process of being held for a court marshal which fortunately was quite prompt and at least there, when he gave his account, the "judge" recognized his earnest honesty and apparently he was not the first or only one to be mis-charged/handled in this way. There were at least another dozen altercations of this style (if not gravity) in his career in the USFS. He seemed to trust implicitely that the system would ultimately "do the right thing" and it didn't seem to bother him much that he could-be mishandled while the "sheels of justice" turned. His USFS career involved a huge amount of time in the field (forest), even during his mid-career stint in middle management (District Ranger). It was as if he was simultaneously addicted and allergic to the basic nature of organized systems of authority.

In the shadow of his addiction/allergy, I avoided uniforms entirely excepting a few months in the BSA at his insistence. I gave over to the shirt and necktie but it all felt too much like being a member of the "hitler youth" to me. I was institutionalized at LANL for 27 years with (too) many of the same features. In place of a uniform, I had a security clearance, a Z-number and a Badge which came with their own egregious rule-sets and implied authority and paradoxes. During that time, my best work was done as the de-facto leader of small teams (3-10). Each time that de-facto leadership lead to a formal leadership position, it eventually went bad, requiring me to move on to fresh pastures. I made a couple of lame attempts at rising to middle management but couldn't hold a straight face during the interview process, knowing that I didn't respect many (if any?) of my would-be peers and fearing that I was about to join them by way of the "Peter Principle". My 27 year career at LANL consisted of patchwork of jobs like this ranging from 3-7 years in duration. I was very relieved the day I decided to leave LANL (2008) and shocked at how much MORE relieved I was the day I surrendered my clearances (2010).

Outside of my institutionalization in BS (big science), I have often been self-employed and entrepreneurial and generally fairly independent in my work. I always saw the benefits of working within an organizational context to be "convenient" but suspect.

Anecdotally Yours,

- Steve

On 1/15/19 9:18 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote:

I don't know, man.  I'm an antisocial person.  But I seem to meet a lot of people who truly *enjoy* being in and playing on teams.  Teams are, by definition, algorithmic, some more, some less.  The same could be said about going to arena sized concerts, or chanting silly things at protests or rallies: Lock Him Up! Lock Him Up! 8^)

These people don't *seem* like they feel demeaned.  They seem energized by their mob behavior.  Teams are energized when they play "in the zone".  Etc.  Even in the case of the high rank *nodes*.  Their decisions are more algorithmic than those of the low rank nodes.  The difference is they have to be *rational* ... they have to encapsulate much more of the algorithm inside their heads, whereas the low rank nodes have more of the algorithm in the machinery and processes around them ... the "extended mind" as it were.

The people who "hate the government" are *big* team players.  That's the problem.  They're upset because they don't feel like they're part of the team.  They've been left out (mostly because they can't catch or hit the damned ball!).


On 1/14/19 10:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Oh, it was more than the pomp Wouk bristled at.  It was the removal of discretion, as well.  The American military is perhaps better than most in that regard, but any military has to operate on algorithms, and nobody likes to be a node in an algorithm.  So, I guess my thesis was that in the second world war we got a double and conflicting lesson:  how effective an algorithmic system can be AND how demeaning it can be to be part of one.  Two solutions present themselves: 1. Hire mercenaries and 2. Automate.  Of course we have done both.  

 

An officer of your dad’s rank, of course, was an exception and even within that giant system he made big decisions daily, decisions that affected the lives of thousands of people.  There is a scene in that same book where an officer is required to make one of those decisions between surely killing 50 strangers or threatening the life of 150 you know that utilitarians are fond of posing.  It’s a harrowing scene.  

 

I wonder what the relation is between a distaste for government and service as an enlisted soldier.  That’s not a rhetorical question.  I do wonder.  I am thinking there is a high correlation between states with high military participation  and states with anti-government politics.  When a conservative thinks of “government” is he more likely to think of the military?

Prof David West

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

"any military must operate on algorithms" (Nick)

Not really true. and there is a huge spectrum of "algorithm-ness" as a function of military branch, activity, rank, etc.

A navy vessel is a machine and operates on algorithms. Humans within that machine must be constrained to be as machine-like and algorithm governed as possible else the underlying machine falters. Same this is true of the quasi-military astronauts in the space station.

In the army, soldiers are trained in principles until they become second nature and their subsequent behavior is, if successful, decidedly non-algorithmic (instead it is complex / emergent). "Plans are always the first casualty of war." Plans = algorithms. Read General McChrystal's book, Team of Teams, to get what I am saying.

A fighter pilot 'practices algorithmically' but does not fight that way. Commercial pilots fly algorithmically — is what makes the job so damn boring — but Schulenberger (tenth anniversary today) did not land in the Hudson according to some algorithm.

BTW, software developers are supposed to ply their trade rationally (i.e. algorithmically) but David Parnas once wrote an excellent paper, "The Rational Design Process: how and why to fake it," that put the lie to the ideal.

davew

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, at 11:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Thanks for answering, Frank.

As the old song goes, “Then you’re much older than I-yai!”

Do you also remember when “They waltzed to a Souza Band”

My wasn’t that music grand!

Oh, it was more than the pomp Wouk bristled at. It was the removal of discretion, as well. The American military is perhaps better than most in that regard, but any military has to operate on algorithms, and nobody likes to be a node in an algorithm. So, I guess my thesis was that in the second world war we got a double and conflicting lesson: how effective an algorithmic system can be AND how demeaning it can be to be part of one. Two solutions present themselves: 1. Hire mercenaries and 2. Automate. Of course we have done both.

An officer of your dad’s rank, of course, was an exception and even within that giant system he made big decisions daily, decisions that affected the lives of thousands of people. There is a scene in that same book where an officer is required to make one of those decisions between surely killing 50 strangers or threatening the life of 150 you know that utilitarians are fond of posing. It’s a harrowing scene.

I wonder what the relation is between a distaste for government and service as an enlisted soldier. That’s not a rhetorical question. I do wonder. I am thinking there is a high correlation between states with high military participation and states with anti-government politics. When a conservative thinks of “government” is he more likely to think of the military?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 10:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Few of you ...

I read the book but I don't remember that paragraph. As you know, dad was a Naval Officer who achieved respectable rank. I was fascinated by it but he felt that all the pomp and ceremony was BS. If computers are today's sailors, something is lost and something gained.

Frank
-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 9:53 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email] wrote:

, I imagine, are old enough to remember this:

“The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots. If you are not an idiot, but find yourself in the Navy, you can only operate well by pretending to be one. All the shortcuts and economies and common-sense changes that your native intelligence suggests to you are mistakes. Learn to quash them. Constantly ask yourself, "How would I do this if I were a fool?" Throttle down your mind to a crawl. Then you will never go wrong.”
― Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny
It seems right that the computer was invented by a democratic society after the largest successful naval campaign in the history of the universe. The navy was a giant algorithm. Computers are the conscripted sailors of our generation.

Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

As usual, embedded in your story lies our group identity which we might call "applied complexity". Well done!

On 1/15/19 9:29 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

> Glen claims "antisocial" and I think Dave has mentioned his own "tendency to withdraw from society" (my paraphrase, I welcome correction or elaboration.    I hypothosize that *many* who are significantly engaged in online discussion/community may well fit one of the myriad positions on (and near?) the anti-social spectrum?
>
> I personally prefer to consider myself to have "asocial tendencies". I'm not entirely uncomfortable in social groups, but I know I tend to prefer smaller groups or sub-groups within a larger group, to the extreme of engaging mostly in serial one-on-one conversations at dinner parties. I tend to reserve the term "anti-social" for something a bit more active in the sense of not only avoiding engaging in social groups/activities, but being hostile (openly or not) toward such groups.   I can admit to being somewhat judgemental about large-group activities (attending pop culture events en-masse, including political rallies and street protests), but more in the sense of "I wouldn't be caught dead doing that!" rather than "anyone who participates in such things are mindless idiots!"   I even accept that under the right circumstances I have been known to participate. I do attend small gathering performances/readings/events and in most cases find their downside more about the
> tedium than the actual content/experience itself.
>
> My father (1927-2014) was a bit of a paradox on this topic. He was born and raised amongst his hillbilly relatives. His father (my grandfather (1898-1975) and grandmother(1899-1950) were the first of their generation to get an advanced education (MS/BS degrees vs typically 8th grade) and escape the day to day circumstances of their otherwise humble origins.   My grandmother, despite education and living in a small city through her adult life, never left her "mountain origins" while my grandfather fashioned himself much more of a "modern man".   My own father spent his self aware life in one of three uniforms, two in the service of the US Government.   The first was in the Boy Scouts of America for his teen years. The Second as a recruit in the US Navy at the very end of WWII, not leaving dock until after VJ day, spending his 3 years helping to clean up after the war in the Pacific. The third was as an employee of the US Forest Service. His roots and instincts were those of
> a very independent person who felt by some measure that every man was an island, yet his practice was to find his place as an island as a member of an Archipelago.    Half the allure of the Boy Scouts and of the US Forest Service was his draw to spend time in the wilds... the other half seems to have been to *also* have the sanction of the authority of a uniform and a set of rules.   His stint in the Navy may have been the same.
>
> Many of his anecdotes about both the USN and USFS involved him recognizing/discovering/exercising the distinction between blind observance of rules and the recognition and pursuit of the spirit of the rules, and him having ultimately prevailed over strict interpretations with common sense actions in the spirit when not the letter of the regulations. His proudest moment may have been when his court martial was dismissed abruptly after being charged for deriliction/AWOL during the Port Chicago disaster in 1944 where 320 Navy men were killed and a similar number were injured. He was a medical aide/assistant on his ship which was docked near the disaster and when the injured personnel began arriving, he reported for duty without being called. After several shifts of non-stop desperate work to do triage and save the lives (and often limbs) of those harmed, he returned to his berth only to be arrested for having not been available when they came to collect him for duty in the
> emergency. They apparently ignored or didn't believe his "alibi" and he went through the whole formal process of being held for a court marshal which fortunately was quite prompt and at least there, when he gave his account, the "judge" recognized his earnest honesty and apparently he was not the first or only one to be mis-charged/handled in this way.    There were at least another dozen altercations of this style (if not gravity) in his career in the USFS. He seemed to trust implicitely that the system would ultimately "do the right thing" and it didn't seem to bother him much that he could-be mishandled while the "sheels of justice" turned. His USFS career involved a huge amount of time in the field (forest), even during his mid-career stint in middle management (District Ranger). It was as if he was simultaneously addicted and allergic to the basic nature of organized systems of authority.
>
> In the shadow of his addiction/allergy, I avoided uniforms entirely excepting a few months in the BSA at his insistence. I gave over to the shirt and necktie but it all felt too much like being a member of the "hitler youth" to me. I was /institutionalized/ at LANL for 27 years with (too) many of the same features. In place of a uniform, I had a security clearance, a Z-number and a Badge which came with their own egregious rule-sets and implied authority and paradoxes. During that time, my best work was done as the de-facto leader of small teams (3-10). Each time that de-facto leadership lead to a formal leadership position, it eventually went bad, requiring me to move on to fresh pastures. I made a couple of lame attempts at rising to middle management but couldn't hold a straight face during the interview process, knowing that I didn't respect many (if any?) of my would-be peers and fearing that I was about to join them by way of the "Peter Principle". My 27 year
> career at LANL consisted of patchwork of jobs like this ranging from 3-7 years in duration. I was very relieved the day I decided to leave LANL (2008) and shocked at how much MORE relieved I was the day I surrendered my clearances (2010).
>
> Outside of my institutionalization in BS (big science), I have often been self-employed and entrepreneurial and generally fairly independent in my work.   I always saw the benefits of working within an organizational context to be "convenient" but suspect.

--
☣ uǝlƃ
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Steve Smith

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Nick -

Attempting to respond to the "algorithmic" subtopic:

I have felt from an early age (before I knew the term algorithm) that the socio-political-religious-economic systems we all operate within are algorithmic. I am prone to define "fascism" as any such systems which go over some magical threshold from trying to follow the part of their charter which is to serve some end outside of the system to caring primarily (or exclusively) about self-perpetuation (coherence, robustness and growth).

With that in mind, the US highway/transportation system from the Interstate Highway system down to semi-maintained former logging roads, the vehicles traveling over them, the rules governing them, and the people operating those vehicles and pursuing other ends/interests through the engagement of the system represent a large, complex "computation" of sorts. As self-driving vehicles are displaced by variations on self-riving vehicles, the similarity will approach identity.

I agree with Dave's general distinction between "algorithm" and "algorithmic context", though it would seem that nominally "algorithmic context" is maintained (if not established as well) by another level of "algorithms" (e.g. Maritime/Mechanical/Civil Engineering principles, etc.)

- Steve

On 1/15/19 10:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Nick wrote:

"Computers are the conscripted sailors of our generation."

I would say that "computer users are the conscripted sailors.

Computers, computing, software: all are algorithmic, creating an "algorithmic context" (Navy) within which human users (Sailors) are constrained to act.

Like human sailors in the Navy, human users acting in this algorithmic context can only go wrong if they attempt to utilize their "native intelligence."

Moreover, this state of affairs is pretty much intentional (albeit sometimes below the threshold of awareness). In the algorithmic world, humans are nothing except sources of error. Even those developing the software are assumed to be (the vast majority anyway) incompetent and must be constrained by rigid and detailed methodology.

SkyNet has won and we are but its minions.

davew

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, at 9:53 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

, I imagine, are old enough to remember this:

“The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots. If you are not an idiot, but find yourself in the Navy, you can only operate well by pretending to be one. All the shortcuts and economies and common-sense changes that your native intelligence suggests to you are mistakes. Learn to quash them. Constantly ask yourself, "How would I do this if I were a fool?" Throttle down your mind to a crawl. Then you will never go wrong.”
― Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny

It seems right that the computer was invented by a democratic society after the largest successful naval campaign in the history of the universe. The navy was a giant algorithm. Computers are the conscripted sailors of our generation.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Prof David West

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen,

I would definitely agree that we are being pretty loose with our notion of algorithmic. But, keeping to the spirit of the discussion so far in that regard:

I would agree that teams, while practicing, are "by definition, algorithmic. But, I would contend that while playing, they are not — particularly so when they are "in the zone." I would say the same thing about standout players, those capable of more than mere supporting roles, e.g. Michael Jordan.

An enlightened Taoist (Ch'an / Zen Buddhist) and Michael Jordan "in the zone" are, I believe, acting algorithmically, even in a strict definition of the term, but the algorithm is incredibly complex — all relevant variables and relationships among them — and "solved" in near zero time.

I see another aspect within your Taoism comment, captured in the Koan:

"What is it like to live as an Enlightened One?"

"When I am hungry, I eat; thirsty, I drink; sleepy, I sleep."

davew

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, at 10:22 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> Heh, all of this begs for a definition of "algorithmic". I sincerely
> doubt Nick was using it in the sense of a fully definite process that is
> guaranteed to halt. So, there's something else, there, something
> significantly *softer* ... more vague ... ill-defined. It's almost as
> if Nick (or Wouk via Nick) thinks rigorous social rules violate the soul
> or denigrate the individual mind in favor of the biofilm (that we
> actually are).
>
> It brings Taoism to my ignorant mind. It seems the fully enlightened
> individual is perfectly free if and only if they fully engage in their
> algorithmic behavior.
>
> On 1/15/19 9:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > Computers, computing, software: all are algorithmic, creating an
> > "algorithmic context" (Navy) within which human users (Sailors) are
> > constrained to act.
> > Like human sailors in the Navy, human users acting in this algorithmic
> > context can only go wrong if they attempt to utilize their "native
> > intelligence."
> > Moreover, this state of affairs is pretty much intentional (albeit
> > sometimes below the threshold of awareness). In the algorithmic world,
> > humans are nothing except sources of error. Even those developing the
> > software are assumed to be (the vast majority anyway) incompetent and
> > must be constrained by rigid and detailed methodology.
> > SkyNet has won and we are but its minions.
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

I witness otherwise intelligent people act that way when they don’t need to. I’d like to think that if enough people smacked them in the head they would stop it.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Few of you ...

Marcus,

Interesting article. Referenced within it is a long Wikipedia article on self-categorization theory, which is, by the way, just a stunning example of abduction.

Eric take note.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

Glen writes:

"But I seem to meet a lot of people who truly *enjoy* being in and playing on teams."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/people-adopt-made-up-social-rules-to-be-part-of-a-group/

Marcus

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Prof David West

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve, I too would prefer the term asocial rather than anti. However, I have, on occasion, been a 'domestic terrorist' which is pretty anti-social.

I can really enjoy being part of a team — for a couple of decades I played basketball 3+ hours a day, 7 days a week. I was, what they called it at the time, a "hang round" — pre-initiate — with the Hell's Angels. I was a youth leader in the LDS church, etc., etc. But, with the exception of the church (wasn't my choice), I was never a "member" of any group.

What prevents me from joining any group is the extent to which it "codifies" itself — i.e. defines itself as a kind of set, with rigid criteria for being a member of that set. If I accept / agree with / behave according to only a subset of that criteria, I will not be allowed to be a member, nor would I wish to be.

davew

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, at 10:29 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Glen claims "antisocial" and I think Dave has mentioned his own "tendency to withdraw from society" (my paraphrase, I welcome correction or elaboration.    I hypothosize that *many* who are significantly engaged in online discussion/community may well fit one of the myriad positions on (and near?) the anti-social spectrum?
I personally prefer to consider myself to have "asocial tendencies". I'm not entirely uncomfortable in social groups, but I know I tend to prefer smaller groups or sub-groups within a larger group, to the extreme of engaging mostly in serial one-on-one conversations at dinner parties. I tend to reserve the term "anti-social" for something a bit more active in the sense of not only avoiding engaging in social groups/activities, but being hostile (openly or not) toward such groups.   I can admit to being somewhat judgemental about large-group activities (attending pop culture events en-masse, including political rallies and street protests), but more in the sense of "I wouldn't be caught dead doing that!" rather than "anyone who participates in such things are mindless idiots!"   I even accept that under the right circumstances I have been known to participate. I do attend small gathering performances/readings/events and in most cases find their downside more about the tedium than the actual content/experience itself.
My father (1927-2014) was a bit of a paradox on this topic. He was born and raised amongst his hillbilly relatives. His father (my grandfather (1898-1975) and grandmother(1899-1950) were the first of their generation to get an advanced education (MS/BS degrees vs typically 8th grade) and escape the day to day circumstances of their otherwise humble origins.   My grandmother, despite education and living in a small city through her adult life, never left her "mountain origins" while my grandfather fashioned himself much more of a "modern man".   My own father spent his self aware life in one of three uniforms, two in the service of the US Government.   The first was in the Boy Scouts of America for his teen years. The Second as a recruit in the US Navy at the very end of WWII, not leaving dock until after VJ day, spending his 3 years helping to clean up after the war in the Pacific. The third was as an employee of the US Forest Service.   His roots and instincts were those of a very independent person who felt by some measure that every man was an island, yet his practice was to find his place as an island as a member of an Archipelago.    Half the allure of the Boy Scouts and of the US Forest Service was his draw to spend time in the wilds... the other half seems to have been to *also* have the sanction of the authority of a uniform and a set of rules.   His stint in the Navy may have been the same.
Many of his anecdotes about both the USN and USFS involved him recognizing/discovering/exercising the distinction between blind observance of rules and the recognition and pursuit of the spirit of the rules, and him having ultimately prevailed over strict interpretations with common sense actions in the spirit when not the letter of the regulations. His proudest moment may have been when his court martial was dismissed abruptly after being charged for deriliction/AWOL during the Port Chicago disaster in 1944 where 320 Navy men were killed and a similar number were injured. He was a medical aide/assistant on his ship which was docked near the disaster and when the injured personnel began arriving, he reported for duty without being called. After several shifts of non-stop desperate work to do triage and save the lives (and often limbs) of those harmed, he returned to his berth only to be arrested for having not been available when they came to collect him for duty in the emergency. They apparently ignored or didn't believe his "alibi" and he went through the whole formal process of being held for a court marshal which fortunately was quite prompt and at least there, when he gave his account, the "judge" recognized his earnest honesty and apparently he was not the first or only one to be mis-charged/handled in this way.    There were at least another dozen altercations of this style (if not gravity) in his career in the USFS. He seemed to trust implicitely that the system would ultimately "do the right thing" and it didn't seem to bother him much that he could-be mishandled while the "sheels of justice" turned. His USFS career involved a huge amount of time in the field (forest), even during his mid-career stint in middle management (District Ranger). It was as if he was simultaneously addicted and allergic to the basic nature of organized systems of authority.
In the shadow of his addiction/allergy, I avoided uniforms entirely excepting a few months in the BSA at his insistence. I gave over to the shirt and necktie but it all felt too much like being a member of the "hitler youth" to me. I was institutionalized at LANL for 27 years with (too) many of the same features. In place of a uniform, I had a security clearance, a Z-number and a Badge which came with their own egregious rule-sets and implied authority and paradoxes. During that time, my best work was done as the de-facto leader of small teams (3-10). Each time that de-facto leadership lead to a formal leadership position, it eventually went bad, requiring me to move on to fresh pastures. I made a couple of lame attempts at rising to middle management but couldn't hold a straight face during the interview process, knowing that I didn't respect many (if any?) of my would-be peers and fearing that I was about to join them by way of the "Peter Principle". My 27 year career at LANL consisted of patchwork of jobs like this ranging from 3-7 years in duration. I was very relieved the day I decided to leave LANL (2008) and shocked at how much MORE relieved I was the day I surrendered my clearances (2010).
Outside of my institutionalization in BS (big science), I have often been self-employed and entrepreneurial and generally fairly independent in my work.   I always saw the benefits of working within an organizational context to be "convenient" but suspect.
Anecdotally Yours,
- Steve
On 1/15/19 9:18 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote:
I don't know, man.  I'm an antisocial person.  But I seem to meet a lot of people who truly *enjoy* being in and playing on teams.  Teams are, by definition, algorithmic, some more, some less.  The same could be said about going to arena sized concerts, or chanting silly things at protests or rallies: Lock Him Up! Lock Him Up! 8^)

These people don't *seem* like they feel demeaned.  They seem energized by their mob behavior.  Teams are energized when they play "in the zone".  Etc.  Even in the case of the high rank *nodes*.  Their decisions are more algorithmic than those of the low rank nodes.  The difference is they have to be *rational* ... they have to encapsulate much more of the algorithm inside their heads, whereas the low rank nodes have more of the algorithm in the machinery and processes around them ... the "extended mind" as it were.

The people who "hate the government" are *big* team players.  That's the problem.  They're upset because they don't feel like they're part of the team.  They've been left out (mostly because they can't catch or hit the damned ball!).


On 1/14/19 10:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Oh, it was more than the pomp Wouk bristled at.  It was the removal of discretion, as well.  The American military is perhaps better than most in that regard, but any military has to operate on algorithms, and nobody likes to be a node in an algorithm.  So, I guess my thesis was that in the second world war we got a double and conflicting lesson:  how effective an algorithmic system can be AND how demeaning it can be to be part of one.  Two solutions present themselves: 1. Hire mercenaries and 2. Automate.  Of course we have done both.  

 

An officer of your dad’s rank, of course, was an exception and even within that giant system he made big decisions daily, decisions that affected the lives of thousands of people.  There is a scene in that same book where an officer is required to make one of those decisions between surely killing 50 strangers or threatening the life of 150 you know that utilitarians are fond of posing.  It’s a harrowing scene.  

 

I wonder what the relation is between a distaste for government and service as an enlisted soldier.  That’s not a rhetorical question.  I do wonder.  I am thinking there is a high correlation between states with high military participation  and states with anti-government politics.  When a conservative thinks of “government” is he more likely to think of the military?  
============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

So, while reading the wikipedia article, an old saw of mine re-emerges. They talk about these sorts of things as "fluid" or context dependent. Yet they never (given my dilettante attention) talk about transients, transition times, half-life, periodicity, etc. How long does it take to self-stereotype? How many smacks does it take to snap out of it?

The reason I ask is because, recognizing my (OK, fine!) asociality, I almost always adopt a role in any given social context. It's a purposeful adoption and I've gotten quite good at it, I think. Either there is no "me" to deindividuate *or* theories like self-categorization are brain farts of the imagination and have no real bearing on actual life. (And there can be no in between! .... just kidding, of course. I'm drawing the distinction for rhetorical purposes.)

The interesting thing is that I can don and doff these roles almost instantaneously. Talk to one guy at the party and play the role of Programmer. He goes off for a beer and talk to another person and play the role of Occult Scholar. (My favorite story is when Jon Parsons ejaculated into a velvet box to summon his red-headed homunculus that was later stolen from him by L. Ron Hubbard.) Then she goes off when the host announces margaritas and launch into Cancer Survivor mode with someone else. It's truly a breath of fresh air when I run across someone else who is willing to swap roles several times through a single conversation.

I sincerely pity the person who finds themselves playing one or a small cluster of roles for all or most of their contexts, assuming such people exist.

On 1/15/19 9:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I witness otherwise intelligent people act that way when they don’t need to. I’d like to think that if enough people smacked them in the head they would stop it.
>
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
> Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Few of you ...
>
> Interesting article. Referenced within it is a long Wikipedia article on self-categorization theory<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-categorization_theory>, which is, by the way, just a stunning example of abduction.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Few of you ...

Glen writes:

< It's truly a breath of fresh air when I run across someone else who is willing to swap roles several times through a single conversation. >

Why do there have to be roles and not just topics?

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Few of you ...

Good question. An individual discussing a topic implies a deep, historical, perspective on the part of the discussant. When I engage individuals (with deep structure and historicity), I have a lot of work to do to carry on a healthy conversation. Such work is exhausting. Even a *social* person will tire eventually. I tire quickly. And if you double down and apply alcohol to the context, then while you may *think* you're doing the required work to listen empathetically and treat the individuals with respect (including yourself), things like alcohol trick you. You think you're doing a good job of it. But you should know that you're not. The more you drink, the less competent at that work you become.

So, the answer is to adopt roles when shallowness is required. If, in that rare instance, depth is required, you can then commit to the work (or bail because you know you're not in a competent state).

There's another, more subtle, reason to adopt roles. To have a fully Socratic conversation, you have to commit to an extra extent to play along with things your authentic, fully complex, individual self may not agree with. The most well-known role is Devil's Advocate. But there are many others. If I don't adopt the role, I end up just sitting there listening politely ... which people have told me seems "aloof" or "stand-off-ish".

My last best story in this vein was when some guests raised the issue of gun control. My full individual believes everyone should have lots of big powerful guns and fire at will. My socially adjusted subset of roles adopted argue that guns are *the* material cause of gun deaths and, rationally, should be restricted. How they should be restricted further subdivides that subset of roles.

On 1/15/19 10:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Glen writes:
>
> < It's truly a breath of fresh air when I run across someone else who is willing to swap roles several times through a single conversation. >
>
> Why do there have to be roles and not just topics?

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: Few of you ...

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve,

That’s a great story. I find more and I need to know more about people’s biographies if I am to remember their points of view. So this is very helpful.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 10:29 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Few of you ...

Anecdotally Yours,

- Steve

On 1/15/19 9:18 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote:

I don't know, man.  I'm an antisocial person.  But I seem to meet a lot of people who truly *enjoy* being in and playing on teams.  Teams are, by definition, algorithmic, some more, some less.  The same could be said about going to arena sized concerts, or chanting silly things at protests or rallies: Lock Him Up! Lock Him Up! 8^)

These people don't *seem* like they feel demeaned.  They seem energized by their mob behavior.  Teams are energized when they play "in the zone".  Etc.  Even in the case of the high rank *nodes*.  Their decisions are more algorithmic than those of the low rank nodes.  The difference is they have to be *rational* ... they have to encapsulate much more of the algorithm inside their heads, whereas the low rank nodes have more of the algorithm in the machinery and processes around them ... the "extended mind" as it were.

The people who "hate the government" are *big* team players.  That's the problem.  They're upset because they don't feel like they're part of the team.  They've been left out (mostly because they can't catch or hit the damned ball!).

On 1/14/19 10:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Oh, it was more than the pomp Wouk bristled at.  It was the removal of discretion, as well.  The American military is perhaps better than most in that regard, but any military has to operate on algorithms, and nobody likes to be a node in an algorithm.  So, I guess my thesis was that in the second world war we got a double and conflicting lesson:  how effective an algorithmic system can be AND how demeaning it can be to be part of one.  Two solutions present themselves: 1. Hire mercenaries and 2. Automate.  Of course we have done both.

An officer of your dad’s rank, of course, was an exception and even within that giant system he made big decisions daily, decisions that affected the lives of thousands of people.  There is a scene in that same book where an officer is required to make one of those decisions between surely killing 50 strangers or threatening the life of 150 you know that utilitarians are fond of posing.  It’s a harrowing scene.

I wonder what the relation is between a distaste for government and service as an enlisted soldier.  That’s not a rhetorical question.  I do wonder.  I am thinking there is a high correlation between states with high military participation  and states with anti-government politics.  When a conservative thinks of “government” is he more likely to think of the military?

1234